Measure #3

Pages

i had no idea it was on the ballot for November 6, 2012. here is the text again...

"The right of farmers and ranchers to engage in modern farming and ranching practices shall be forever guaranteed in this state. No law shall be enacted which abridges the right of farmers and ranchers to employ agricultural technology, modern livestock production and ranching practices."

i know it was beat to death this spring. but, i think it deserves some discussion again. so... discuss away... will be back later to check on you guys.

This is interesting. Is there any other industry that has the testicular fortitude to say that we should never be regulated ever?

Is it impious to weigh goose music and art in the same scales? I think not, because the true hunter is merely a noncreative artist. Who painted the first picture on a bone in the caves of France? A hunter. Who alone in our modern life so thrills to the sight of living beauty that he will endure hunger and thirst and cold to feed his eye upon it? The hunter. Who wrote the great hunter's poem about the sheer wonder of the wind, the hail, and the snow, the stars, the lightnings, and the clouds, the lion, the deer, and the wild goat, the raven, the hawk, and the eagle, and above all the eulogy to the horse? Job, one of the great dramatic artists of all time. Poets sing and hunters scale the mountains primarily for one and the same reason--the thrill of beauty. Critics write and hunters outwit their game primarily for one and the same reason--to reduce that beauty to possession. The differences are largely matters of degree, consciousness, and that sly arbiter of the classification of human activities, language. If, then, we can live without goose music, we may as well do away with stars, or sunsets, or Iliads. But the point is we would be fools to do away with any of them.

Meelosh Said:
This is interesting. Is there any other industry that has the testicular fortitude to say that we should never be regulated ever?

Meelosh, I know more people in the "farming industry" who think this measure is a joke than those who want it to pass. There may be a group out there who wants this measure to pass but most farmers recognize that this is not in the best interest of the state or the "industry."

I heard a commercial on the radio the other day in support saying how we better vote for it if we want to protect our food.... all I could say was "wow."

Federal politics are a joke to debate on here but I have no problem voicing my support for a NO vote on M3

This is a copy and paste from the NDFU website, do with it as you please:

Measure 3: Right to Farm WHAT THE AMENDMENT DOES
Adds a new section to the state constitution that guarantees the right of farmers and ranchers to engage in modern farming and ranching practices. It prohibits any law that “abridges the right of farmers and ranchers to employ agricultural technology, modern livestock production and ranching practices.”

NDFU’s POSITION: OPPOSE

The amendment is contrary to many NDFU policy positions, including those regarding stewardship, responsibility, a balance between conservation and agriculture interests, and others.
Unlike the state’s current right-to-farm statute, the amendment doesn’t require that a farmer/rancher use sound agricultural practices or operate without negligence, as the measure guarantees an unlimited right to use any “modern” practice.
It would prohibit any law —local zoning, state statute, agency regulation from animal cruelty prevention to water/health regulations to GMO regulation or segregation rules — that would regulate agricultural practices. As a result, we will lose local control and the authority to find solutions at the local and state level.
Further, while this constitutional “right” would trump local and state laws, federal law will preempt it and will remain in place. Any authority the state or local government might currently have to provide reasonable regulation will be gone, and the federal law would be all that’s left, even if it isn’t a good fit.

I havent looked over this measure much, but am I the only one that gets pissed off when reading this crap on the ballot with all of its legal mumbo jumbo wording. Why can't this stuff be wrote out in a clear manor where you don't have to decipher what a yes means vs. a no...

isn't that all warm and fuzzy... a kid eating a cob of corn with a big smile on her face and a good ole farmer/rancher with a big smile and a nice hat on... and some references to how voting "no" would endanger our food supply. lol.

if this measure is everything supporters say it is, why are the Union and Bureau on opposite sides of the issue. if you can't even get the Union on board, i think it deserves a big old "no" from me. but, i had my mind made up months ago. so, as i see it, this only helps solidify the "no" argument.

If passed Will this trump the industrial Hemp laws ? no doubt it will be challenged by someone. From the seeds You get 10 times as much petro per acre as corn and you can actually make cars and many other items out of the by product. The by product if used for pressed particle board produces more material on one acre in one year than many acres of trees that take 30 years to grow. This is just to simple to not understand once you look into it. I have been waiting for years for just one good reason why ag producers should not be allowed to grow industrial hemp. Am I crazy ?? Or is it the feds that are crazy .

probably both. lol. but, i am with you on the industrial hemp issue. either way, i don't think this measure is a way around the federal regs cause i think they would trump our state constitution on this issue. but, i may be mistaken cause there might be a difference between your run of the mill initiative and one that is constitutional in nature. and without being sure, i would rather not comment on it i guess. and even if i am right, it would still come down to enforcement... think medical marijuana... even tho those state laws certainly don't trump the federal laws, they get by with it cause the feds have backed off enforcing their laws in the face of the state's position.

I honestly don't know what this will do other than make it more difficult for those like the HSUS to want to even try to play shenanigans.

The word abridge is sort of the key to me. Basically keeps things in perspective of farming and ranching practices.

Sure, conspiracy theorist but even North Dakota can have a slow erosion causing wiggle room for the anti's. Measure 5 is being said to be voted down yet really the same reason you are wanting Measure 5 shot down is why Measure 3 is being asked to be passed. To stop the anti's from gaining ground...

I don't know, will have to think this through I guess. All I can say is you'd be pretty foolish if you think this Measure is going to somehow make agriculture 100% unregulated or even make it less regulated than it is now.

I'll make some phone calls to those I lean on for info before I make a hasty decision.

Wether this is needed in our state constitution or not can indeed be debated. Or wether it was worded the best it could have been ect... . In other states outside organizations such as the HSUS which is currently right here in ND in another measure HAVE accomplished ending what are "modern livestock production practices" in banning poultry operations and farrow to finish hog operations and veal calf operations. So please do not assume this can not happen.

As I said wether you beleive it could here in ND..................... well ND is indeed different than California, but can you slaughter a horse here in ND? Not if Measure 5 were to pass. And who is behind this measure 5?? HSUS. So they are indeed attempting to influence animal agriculture law and operations even here in ND.

So discuss this all you wish, but please understand this will NOT prevent agriculture from being regulated despite what some people have claimed. Laws will still be able to be passed regarding for example hog farms as to where they may be built, rules they must follow ect......... as long as the "right" to engage in hog farming in say a farrow to finish operation (the practice itself) is not banned.

As to who determines what is a "modern farming and ranching practice. That will continue to fall upon the legislature just as it now does. The legislature has the right to determine who and what is regulated under the laws they pass.

Even if this measure did what opponanents are saying (and I am not sugesting it may) if the impact on ND was negative, the legislature can and I imagine would vote to overturn it.

As to the "vagueness", indeed it is frustrating but in regards to a constitutional amendment, there are consequences to becoming overly specific as well.

It is great that these measures are discussed. It is the obligation of every voter to inform themselves regarding what they are being asked to vote on. There needs to be questions asked and answered. So please lets try and keep the rhetoric to a minimum if possible and leave the personal accusations of greed and such out of the discussion.

As a rancher who is somewhat informed and aware of the efforts of various groups to end how I provide for my family, I will vote for this measure. I wish it had been better written to have been less of a concern to voters, but I beleive it will provide far more benefit than it will harm to our state.

At least the sponsors and supporters themselves gathered real signatures to get this on the ballot !!

isn't that all warm and fuzzy... a kid eating a cob of corn with a big smile on her face and a good ole farmer/rancher with a big smile and a nice hat on... and some references to how voting "no" would endanger our food supply. lol.
if this measure is everything supporters say it is, why are the Union and Bureau on opposite sides of the issue. if you can't even get the Union on board, i think it deserves a big old "no" from me. but, i had my mind made up months ago. so, as i see it, this only helps solidify the "no" argument.

espringers, if you had a better understandig of the history between these two orgs, you would realize that it is standard OP for the FU to oppose ANYTHING FB brings forth and vice versa.

did you guys read the FU's position? they seem to take the exact opposite position that gst and the FB are taking... quote from the FU webpage and above:

It would prohibit any law —local zoning, state statute, agency regulation from animal cruelty prevention to water/health regulations to GMO regulation or segregation rules — that would regulate agricultural practices. As a result, we will lose local control and the authority to find solutions at the local and state level.

please explain why they would think it will do just what we have always said it would. if anything, they should be siding with the FB. the fact that they are not speaks volumes doesn't it?

Tim Sandstrom Said:
I honestly don't know what this will do other than make it more difficult for those like the HSUS to want to even try to play shenanigans.

The word abridge is sort of the key to me. Basically keeps things in perspective of farming and ranching practices.

Sure, conspiracy theorist but even North Dakota can have a slow erosion causing wiggle room for the anti's. Measure 5 is being said to be voted down yet really the same reason you are wanting Measure 5 shot down is why Measure 3 is being asked to be passed. To stop the anti's from gaining ground...

I don't know, will have to think this through I guess. All I can say is you'd be pretty foolish if you think this Measure is going to somehow make agriculture 100% unregulated or even make it less regulated than it is now.

I'll make some phone calls to those I lean on for info before I make a hasty decision.

Tim, this is a bullet from my above posting:

It would prohibit any law —local zoning, state statute, agency regulation from animal cruelty prevention to water/health regulations to GMO regulation or segregation rules — that would regulate agricultural practices.

The way I read the measure, if this passes I can buy some land right on the west edge of Citytownville and put up a big pig barn as long as I'm using modern farming practices. I don't have to get the land zoned agricultural and make sure it fits in with the city planning as long as I'm using up to date practices on my pig barn.

Tim Sandstrom Said:
I honestly don't know what this will do other than make it more difficult for those like the HSUS to want to even try to play shenanigans.

The word abridge is sort of the key to me. Basically keeps things in perspective of farming and ranching practices.

Sure, conspiracy theorist but even North Dakota can have a slow erosion causing wiggle room for the anti's. Measure 5 is being said to be voted down yet really the same reason you are wanting Measure 5 shot down is why Measure 3 is being asked to be passed. To stop the anti's from gaining ground...

I don't know, will have to think this through I guess. All I can say is you'd be pretty foolish if you think this Measure is going to somehow make agriculture 100% unregulated or even make it less regulated than it is now.

I'll make some phone calls to those I lean on for info before I make a hasty decision.

My question then is why isn't it worded as so? The way it is currently worded, which is very vague in my opinion, gives me and many others the impression that there will be no further regulation against the industry from this point on. I've visited a few individuals deeply rooted in the industry and they agree.

If god didn't want us to eat animals....he wouldn't have made them out of food.

isn't that all warm and fuzzy... a kid eating a cob of corn with a big smile on her face and a good ole farmer/rancher with a big smile and a nice hat on... and some references to how voting "no" would endanger our food supply. lol.
if this measure is everything supporters say it is, why are the Union and Bureau on opposite sides of the issue. if you can't even get the Union on board, i think it deserves a big old "no" from me. but, i had my mind made up months ago. so, as i see it, this only helps solidify the "no" argument.

espringers, if you had a better understandig of the history between these two orgs, you would realize that it is standard OP for the FU to oppose ANYTHING FB brings forth and vice versa.

Conservative/liberal Republican/Democrat ect.....

Why is it you suppose a Democrat opposes a Republican's tax plan?

Baisically what gabe is saying here is that you are dumb espringers. In a round about way of course.haha

If god didn't want us to eat animals....he wouldn't have made them out of food.

Tim Sandstrom Said:
I honestly don't know what this will do other than make it more difficult for those like the HSUS to want to even try to play shenanigans.

The word abridge is sort of the key to me. Basically keeps things in perspective of farming and ranching practices.

Sure, conspiracy theorist but even North Dakota can have a slow erosion causing wiggle room for the anti's. Measure 5 is being said to be voted down yet really the same reason you are wanting Measure 5 shot down is why Measure 3 is being asked to be passed. To stop the anti's from gaining ground...

I don't know, will have to think this through I guess. All I can say is you'd be pretty foolish if you think this Measure is going to somehow make agriculture 100% unregulated or even make it less regulated than it is now.

I'll make some phone calls to those I lean on for info before I make a hasty decision.

Tim, this is a bullet from my above posting:

It would prohibit any law —local zoning, state statute, agency regulation from animal cruelty prevention to water/health regulations to GMO regulation or segregation rules — that would regulate agricultural practices.

The way I read the measure, if this passes I can buy some land right on the west edge of Citytownville and put up a big pig barn as long as I'm using modern farming practices. I don't have to get the land zoned agricultural and make sure it fits in with the city planning as long as I'm using up to date practices on my pig barn.

Slippery slope in my eyes...

The legislature retains the ability to say WHERE your hog barn can be built as long as they do not pass a law stating it can NOT be built anywhere in ND. This measure will NOT trump current laws that would prohibit you from doing this including set back and odor control laws.

It will not prevent the leislature from passing other laws that regiulate but not prohibit the practice from occuring.

Indeed check out what this measure will do, but to place an overly influencing emphasis on FU response to a FB policy is like asking Obama wether you should support Romney.

These two organizations will literally cut off their own nose to spite each other.

And please consider the die hard members of each will take a similar position regardless.

Tim Sandstrom Said:
I honestly don't know what this will do other than make it more difficult for those like the HSUS to want to even try to play shenanigans.

The word abridge is sort of the key to me. Basically keeps things in perspective of farming and ranching practices.

Sure, conspiracy theorist but even North Dakota can have a slow erosion causing wiggle room for the anti's. Measure 5 is being said to be voted down yet really the same reason you are wanting Measure 5 shot down is why Measure 3 is being asked to be passed. To stop the anti's from gaining ground...

I don't know, will have to think this through I guess. All I can say is you'd be pretty foolish if you think this Measure is going to somehow make agriculture 100% unregulated or even make it less regulated than it is now.

I'll make some phone calls to those I lean on for info before I make a hasty decision.

My question then is why isn't it worded as so? The way it is currently worded, which is very vague in my opinion, gives me and many others the impression that there will be no further regulation against the industry from this point on. I've visited a few individuals deeply rooted in the industry and they agree.

I am with gst on this just like the rest of you, the vagueness is rather puzzling but as mentioned again by gst you do not see the Constitution go great into detail either. Its one of those catch 22's I guess. I suppose why we have supreme justices to complain about.

But I will say this, if this has the power to just make a free for all I cannot believe with my right mind anyone would even consider it. I'm guessing there are stipulations to that we are not fully researching. Just because the US Constitution says I have freedom of speech doesn't mean I am 100% free to be an idiot or I won't get in trouble.

We have the right to bear arms but we all know there are rules galore on that.